CTNF 18/916,405 CTNF 86102 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 1. Claim (s) 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA 3. Claim (s) 1, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan et al. (US 2021/0014613) in view of Gauger, JR. et al. (US 2022/0377449) . Regarding claim 1, Carrigan teaches a device comprising: a memory configured to store fit test configuration data associated with a fit test of an audio playback device (see fig. 5E-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system having a programs stored in memory wherein the program goes through the setup for a fit test.) ; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: set, based on the fit test configuration data (see fig. 5E-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system goes through a fit testing attempts, wherein the attempts are based on thresholds amount. Determining whether the detected audio indicates that earbuds satisfy device fit criteria (e.g., by comparing the detected audio to the calibration tone to determine whether and how much ambient audio is included in the detected audio; if the detected audio includes greater than a threshold amount of ambient audio, the device fit criteria is not satisfied). Thus there are values to be measured when testing for a fit test with the user and wearable device.). Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear. Carrigan provides threshold testing, however, Carrigan is vague on a test performance frequency of the fit test to a first value; obtain activity data corresponding to an activity measurement associated with the audio playback device; and set, based on the activity measurement, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a second value. Gauger discloses a measuring audio data being processed to indicate seal quality between the wearable device and the user's ear. Gauger teaches a test performance frequency of the fit test to a first value; obtain activity data corresponding to an activity measurement associated with the audio playback device; and set, based on the activity measurement, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a second value (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity.). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 18, Carrigan teaches a method comprising: setting, by one or more processors based on fit test configuration data associated with a fit test of an audio playback device (see fig. 5E-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system having a programs stored in memory wherein the program goes through the setup for a fit test. The system goes through a fit testing attempts, wherein the attempts are based on thresholds amount. Determining whether the detected audio indicates that earbuds satisfy device fit criteria (e.g., by comparing the detected audio to the calibration tone to determine whether and how much ambient audio is included in the detected audio; if the detected audio includes greater than a threshold amount of ambient audio, the device fit criteria is not satisfied). Thus there are values to be measured when testing for a fit test with the user and wearable device.). Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear. Carrigan provides threshold testing, however, Carrigan is vague on a test performance frequency of the fit test to a first value; obtaining, by the one or more processors, activity data corresponding to an activity measurement associated with the audio playback device; and setting, by the one or more processors based on the activity measurement, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a second value. Gauger discloses a measuring audio data being processed to indicate seal quality between the wearable device and the user's ear. Gauger teaches a test performance frequency of the fit test to a first value; obtaining, by the one or more processors, activity data corresponding to an activity measurement associated with the audio playback device; and setting, by the one or more processors based on the activity measurement, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a second value (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 20, Carrigan teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: set, based on fit test configuration data associated with a fit test of an audio playback device (see fig. 5E-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system having a programs stored in memory wherein the program goes through the setup for a fit test. The system goes through a fit testing attempts, wherein the attempts are based on thresholds amount. Determining whether the detected audio indicates that earbuds satisfy device fit criteria (e.g., by comparing the detected audio to the calibration tone to determine whether and how much ambient audio is included in the detected audio; if the detected audio includes greater than a threshold amount of ambient audio, the device fit criteria is not satisfied). Thus there are values to be measured when testing for a fit test with the user and wearable device.). Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear. Carrigan provides threshold testing, however, Carrigan is vague on a test performance frequency of the fit test to a first value; obtain activity data corresponding to an activity measurement associated with the audio playback device; and set, based on the activity measurement, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a second value. Gauger discloses a measuring audio data being processed to indicate seal quality between the wearable device and the user's ear. Gauger teaches a test performance frequency of the fit test to a first value; obtain activity data corresponding to an activity measurement associated with the audio playback device; and set, based on the activity measurement, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a second value (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity.). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user . 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claim (s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan et al. (US 2021/0014613) in view of Gauger, JR. et al. (US 2022/0377449) . Regarding claim 2, Carrigan dose not teach the device of claim 1, wherein: the fit test configuration data indicates a plurality of test performance frequency values and a plurality of activity levels; and each test performance frequency value of the plurality of test performance frequency values is associated with a corresponding activity level of the plurality of activity levels. Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear Gauger teaches wherein: the fit test configuration data indicates a plurality of test performance frequency values and a plurality of activity levels; and each test performance frequency value of the plurality of test performance frequency values is associated with a corresponding activity level of the plurality of activity levels (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 3, Carrigan dose not teach the device of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: compare the activity measurement to one or more activity thresholds; and select a current activity level from the plurality of activity levels based on the comparison, wherein the current activity level corresponds to a test performance frequency value of the plurality of test performance frequency values, and wherein the second value is the test performance frequency value. Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear Gauger teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: compare the activity measurement to one or more activity thresholds; and select a current activity level from the plurality of activity levels based on the comparison, wherein the current activity level corresponds to a test performance frequency value of the plurality of test performance frequency values, and wherein the second value is the test performance frequency value (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067, 0071. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 4, Carrigan dose not teach the device of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of test performance frequency values includes at least a first test performance frequency value associated with a first activity level and a second test performance frequency value associated with a second activity level; the second test performance frequency value is less than the first test performance frequency value; and the first activity level is greater than the second activity level. Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear Gauger teaches wherein: the plurality of test performance frequency values includes at least a first test performance frequency value associated with a first activity level and a second test performance frequency value associated with a second activity level; the second test performance frequency value is less than the first test performance frequency value; and the first activity level is greater than the second activity level (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067, 0071. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 5, Carrigan does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: obtain audio data from a feedback microphone of the audio playback device, the audio data corresponding to a reference audio signal captured by the feedback microphone; and perform, during each of one or more time periods according to the test performance frequency, the fit test based on the audio data and the reference audio signal. Gauger teaches obtain audio data from a feedback microphone of the audio playback device, the audio data corresponding to a reference audio signal captured by the feedback microphone; and perform, during each of one or more time periods according to the test performance frequency, the fit test based on the audio data and the reference audio signal (see ¶ 0029, 0065-0067. The microphone in the ear, obtains audio signal which can be a reference this provides feedback about the seal if there is a leak or a good seal. Dynamically providing feedback on the seal quality, thus allowing the users to identify the flexible tips that provides an optimized comfort level and sound performance. The continual feedback maybe provided at certain rate (e.g., a number of feedbacks provided per certain time period). As such, even though certain feedback may be presented discretely (e.g., one at a time) to the user, such feedback is still considered as continual feedback.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that include feedback from an audio test in the ear of the user to determine a good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 12, Carrigan teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising a wireless interface configured to receive the activity data from the audio playback device (see fig. 5E-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system having a programs stored in memory wherein the program goes through the setup for a fit test. The system goes through a fit testing attempts, wherein the attempts are based on thresholds amount. Determining whether the detected audio indicates that earbuds satisfy device fit criteria (e.g., by comparing the detected audio to the calibration tone to determine whether and how much ambient audio is included in the detected audio; if the detected audio includes greater than a threshold amount of ambient audio, the device fit criteria is not satisfied). Thus there are values to be measured when testing for a fit test with the user and wearable device.). Regarding claim 13, Carrigan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the audio playback device includes one or more earbud devices, and wherein the fit test is configured to test a fit of the one or more earbud devices in one or more ears of a user (see fig. 5E-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system having a programs stored in memory wherein the program goes through the setup for a fit test. The system goes through a fit testing attempts, wherein the attempts are based on thresholds amount. Determining whether the detected audio indicates that earbuds satisfy device fit criteria (e.g., by comparing the detected audio to the calibration tone to determine whether and how much ambient audio is included in the detected audio; if the detected audio includes greater than a threshold amount of ambient audio, the device fit criteria is not satisfied). Thus there are values to be measured when testing for a fit test with the user and wearable device.). Regarding claim 14, Carrigan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are integrated in a headset device, wherein the audio playback device comprises the headset device, and further comprising: one or more microphones coupled to the one or more processors and configured to capture one or more audio signals, wherein performance of the fit test is based on the one or more audio signals (see fig. 5A-5V, ¶ 0015, 0202-0221. The system having a programs stored in memory wherein the program goes through the setup for a fit test. The system goes through a fit testing attempts, wherein the attempts are based on thresholds amount. Determining whether the detected audio indicates that earbuds satisfy device fit criteria (e.g., by comparing the detected audio to the calibration tone to determine whether and how much ambient audio is included in the detected audio; if the detected audio includes greater than a threshold amount of ambient audio, the device fit criteria is not satisfied). Thus there are values to be measured when testing for a fit test with the user and wearable device.). Regarding claim 15, Carrigan does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are integrated in a headset device, wherein the audio playback device comprises the headset device, and further comprising: one or more speakers configured to generate a reference audio output, wherein the performance of the fit test is based on the reference audio output. Gauger teaches wherein the one or more processors are integrated in a headset device, wherein the audio playback device comprises the headset device, and further comprising: one or more speakers configured to generate a reference audio output, wherein the performance of the fit test is based on the reference audio output (see ¶ 0029, 0065-0067. The microphone in the ear, obtains audio signal which can be a reference this provides feedback about the seal if there is a leak or a good seal. Dynamically providing feedback on the seal quality, thus allowing the users to identify the flexible tips that provides an optimized comfort level and sound performance. The continual feedback maybe provided at certain rate (e.g., a number of feedbacks provided per certain time period). As such, even though certain feedback may be presented discretely (e.g., one at a time) to the user, such feedback is still considered as continual feedback.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that include feedback from an audio test in the ear of the user to determine a good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user. Regarding claim 16, Carrigan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are integrated in at least one of a mobile phone, a tablet computer device, or a wearable electronic device, and wherein the audio playback device is distinct from the mobile phone, the tablet computer device, or the wearable electronic device (see fig. 5A-5I, ¶ 0200-0204. The device having a mobile phone, or tablet and wearable device. The mobile device is distinct from the wearable device.) Regarding claim 19, Carrigan dose not teach the method of claim 18, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, user input that indicates a user-selected frequency value or data that indicates a power level of the audio playback device; and setting, based on the power level, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a third value or setting the test performance frequency of the fit test to the user-selected frequency value. Carrigan discloses a fit test wherein threshold values area tested to determine seal fit and if there is a leak or not when testing in the device in the ear Gauger teaches receiving, by the one or more processors, user input that indicates a user-selected frequency value or data that indicates a power level of the audio playback device; and setting, based on the power level, the test performance frequency of the fit test to a third value or setting the test performance frequency of the fit test to the user-selected frequency value (see fig. 2-4, ¶ 0032-0034, 0043-0044, 0061-0067, 0071. The system measures the frequency response in indicating a level of seal between the speaker and the user ear. Different measurements yield different values wherein it measures different seal qualities. If the seal measures between to different values it can either indicate a good fit or a leaky fit. Continual feedback of a fit quality (FQ), the wearable device may initialize the FQ value to be zero. A current FQ value is measured or identified and compared with two range thresholds to determine a sound loop for playing. The current FQ value may be fed back to replace the initialized FQ value and updated for each execution cycle. The quality of the seal depends on at least one of (1) the size, shape, material properties, and other aspects of the tip, or (2) how well the tip shape conforms to the natural shape of the ear, and (3) the placement in the ear encompassing both an initial position when put on as well as how that position may shift with user movement or activity). The combination of Gauger to Carrigan to provide seal quality measurements that determine if the seal quality is a good fit or a leaky fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan to incorporate seal quality measurements that have threshold values that either determine good or bad seal in the user ear. The modification provides for audio seal fit test to determine if the seal is good or bad as the earbud sits in the ear canal of the user . 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim (s) 7, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan et al. (US 2021/0014613) in view of Gauger, JR. et al. (US 2022/0377449) in further view of Sommer et al. (US 2020/0264006) . Regarding claim 7, Carrigan and Gauger do not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the audio playback device comprises one or more activity sensors, and wherein the activity data includes sensor data output by the one or more activity sensors. Sommer teaches wherein the audio playback device comprises one or more activity sensors, and wherein the activity data includes sensor data output by the one or more activity sensors (see fig. 1B, 0038, 0042, 0049, 0069. The earbuds have motion sensors (IMU) to determine the movement information of the user’s head while audio is playback or played through the earbuds. The user hears the sound as if the sound were coming from a real world location with accurate distance and direction. The system plays a sound through the headset so that the user hears the sound coming from their left, their right, straight ahead, behind, or at some angle.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan and Gauger to incorporate earbud sensor for detecting motion of the user. The modification provides for motion detection of the user based on earbuds sensor for motion detection. Regarding claim 8, Carrigan and Gauger do not teach the device of claim 7, wherein the one or more activity sensors include an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and wherein the activity data includes motion data output by the IMU. Sommer teaches wherein the one or more activity sensors include an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and wherein the activity data includes motion data output by the IMU (see fig. 1B, 0038, 0042, 0049, 0069. The earbuds have motion sensors (IMU) to determine the movement information of the user’s head while audio is playback or played through the earbuds. The user hears the sound as if the sound were coming from a real world location with accurate distance and direction. The system plays a sound through the headset so that the user hears the sound coming from their left, their right, straight ahead, behind, or at some angle.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan and Gauger to incorporate earbud sensor for detecting motion of the user. The modification provides for motion detection of the user based on earbuds sensor for motion detection. Regarding claim 10, Carrigan and Gauger do not teach the device of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to continuously obtain the activity data from the one or more activity sensors during operation of the audio playback device. Sommer teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to continuously obtain the activity data from the one or more activity sensors during operation of the audio playback device (see fig. 1B, 0038, 0042, 0049, 0069. The earbuds have motion sensors (IMU) to determine the movement information of the user’s head while audio is playback or played through the earbuds. The user hears the sound as if the sound were coming from a real world location with accurate distance and direction. The system plays a sound through the headset so that the user hears the sound coming from their left, their right, straight ahead, behind, or at some angle. The system will continuously obtain data as long as the user is wearing the earbuds.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan and Gauger to incorporate earbud sensor for detecting motion of the user. The modification provides for motion detection of the user based on earbuds sensor for motion detection . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan et al. (US 2021/0014613) in view of Gauger, JR. et al. (US 2022/0377449) in further view of Sommer et al. (US 2020/0264006) in further view of LeBoeuf et al. (US 2022/0313098) . Regarding claim 9, Carrigan, Gauger and Sommer do not teach the device of claim 7, wherein: the one or more activity sensors include a bone conduction microphone; the activity data includes audio data that is output by the bone conduction microphone; and the audio data indicates vibrations that correspond to motion of the audio playback device. LeBoeuf teaches wherein: the one or more activity sensors include a bone conduction microphone; the activity data includes audio data that is output by the bone conduction microphone; and the audio data indicates vibrations that correspond to motion of the audio playback device (see fig. 3, ¶ 0196. The earpiece having a bone conduction microphone senses mouth motions which can be vibration that area sensed by the earpiece device (audio playback device)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan and Gauger to incorporate earbud bone conduction sensor for detecting motion of the user. The modification provides for motion detection of the user based on earbuds sensor for motion detection (voice sensing) . 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim (s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan et al. (US 2021/0014613) in view of Gauger, JR. et al. (US 2022/0377449) in further view of Sommer et al. (US 2020/0264006) in further view of LeBoeuf et al. (US 2016/0361020) . Regarding claim 11, Carrigan and Gauger and Sommer do not teach the device of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to periodically obtain the activity data from the one or more activity sensors according to a polling schedule. LeBoeuf teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to periodically obtain the activity data from the one or more activity sensors according to a polling schedule (see fig. 1-2, ¶ 0074. The sensors (motion and biometric) are polled during earbud. This can be done on period or frequency during operations. The polling schedule can be normal or increased based on substantial changes in operation.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan and Gauger and Sommer to incorporate polling the device based on sensor readings from the earbud. The modification provides for motion detection and polling during periods of time for motion data . 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim (s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrigan et al. (US 2021/0014613) in view of Gauger, JR. et al. (US 2022/0377449) in further view of Freeman et al. (US 2025/0097625) . Regarding claim 17, Carrigan and Gauger do not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are integrated in a vehicle, and wherein the audio playback device is distinct from the vehicle. Freeman teaches wherein the one or more processors are integrated in a vehicle, and wherein the audio playback device is distinct from the vehicle (see ¶ 0054. The earphone have there own processors as well as the vehicle having there own processor. The earphone (audio playback device) is distinct from the vehicle system.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carrigan and Gauger to incorporate separate or different devices wherein audio playback occurs. The modification provides for having earphone being a separate device from the vehicle. Conclusion 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAD MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-7253. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ASSAD MOHAMMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2691 /DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 2 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 3 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 4 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 5 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 6 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 7 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 8 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 9 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 10 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 11 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 12 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 13 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 14 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 15 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 16 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 17 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 18 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 19 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 20 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 21 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 22 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 23 Art Unit: 2691 Application/Control Number: 18/916,405 Page 24 Art Unit: 2691
Prosecution Insights